3 ms·

The number of "bright lines" that extremely rapidly became not-so-bright in the past six months is outrageous. I've even seen you personally advocate for polici

The number of "bright lines" that extremely rapidly became not-so-bright in the past six months is outrageous. I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You'll have to excuse me when I don't have any confidence in your claim that there's a safe bright line that'll never be crossed. Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.

rayiner 1y ago
> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works. > to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute. And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the next. All the way down to the one that puts a bullet in my skull.

rayiner 1y ago

> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.

anigbrowl 1y ago
Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works. > to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute. And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.
UncleMeat 1y ago
And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the next. All the way down to the one that puts a bullet in my skull.